To the best of my 54-yr old knowledge, Democrats SUPPORT civil rights,
and Republicans want to LIMIT the federal government.

And that is my point! Their platforms do not match their actions. It has been during Obama's presidency that drone attacks on US citizens have been
defended as a possible alternative to arrest and trial for a suspected
criminal. It was under Bush's presidency that we decided to build a few nations, pass a huge bill that increases federal power and
declares nearly any crime to be terrorism, create a
massive new federal department called "Homeland Security" and grant it unprecedented legal power to enforce the new laws.

A big part of how they get away with it is making sure that each side of the voting public is so busy criticizing the other side and blaming them for
everything that they don't notice what their own party, the group that they voted for, is doing.

A Democrat president can talk all day long about civil rights, but if he thinks drone attacks on citizens are something that should be left on the
table then he is not supporting the most basic civil rights. The same goes for a Republican who adds a whole new department to the
bureaucracy.

Yes this is bad, however can you imagine how much worse it would be under McCain or Romney? McCain actually said in the last republican convention
that people around the world want more US intervention in their countries.

You should listen to that speech, pure craziness.

Also, is Scahill the guy that wrote that book about "the Family"? Now that is scariness there.

Why is that relevant? Those guys lost, they are out of the picture. It seems more productive to focus on what is actually happening now than
what could have happened in an alternate reality.

It's relevant because there are more of 'those guys' down the pike just itching to get elected.
We must keep in mind the 'party platform' agenda. It's naive to think that 'those guys' who are losers were the only ones trying to push
through what they believed.

One needs to study history and add those studies to the context of today in order to see the bigger picture.

It would behoove you to look to the 'party platform' and compare previous candidates (winners and losers) to the current candidates.

I agree with listening to a person's speeches and trying to assess their 'character', but in my experience, one has to ALSO look at the 'bottom
line' of the party they are 'representing'....and weigh all of it out against itself.

I completely ignore speeches and character, or at least the superficial definition of character that is applied to political candidates, when choosing
who to support. I pretty much look at one thing above all others if I want to know what a politician really stands for: Who is whispering advice in
their ear. I look at which industries are supplying the senior campaign staff who will later become cabinet members and appointees.

The most important issue to me in every recent election, but particularly in 2008 presidential, was stopping our involvement in foreign wars. Obama
claimed that he would do this, but I knew that he was lying because of the corrupt and conflicted people that he was surrounding himself with. Back in
2000 I knew that Bush was going to expand government when he first ran for the same reason: the faces that he was surrounded by looked eerily like his
G.H.W. Bush's cabinet, which looked eerily similar to Reagan's cabinet.

I chose not to vote at all in the last election because it all seemed so rigged and pointless, and some folks I know gave me grief about that. I was
told that it is because of people like me, who were unwilling to vote for Romney as a vote against Obama, who were responsible for Obama's victory.
But at least he's not Obama! I reject that. I won't budge on this principle: I am unwilling to vote for someone corrupt just because it is
considered a vote against someone else who is also corrupt. At this point I'm not sure that I will ever vote for another major party candidate for
president, though I will always at least cast a primary vote.

I'm not really sure why you think Glenn Beck is the only one against Agenda 21. I have clearly shown that even liberal Democrats can be against it.
But what would liberal Democrats know eh???

My cordial response was given in genuine interest of putting bickering aside.
I know you still believe the honey-soaked words of the Obama admin even after you just posted your distaste for what they are doing. Some things are
hard to give up, and apparently for you, it is most difficult to give up a belief that Big Govt cares for all us little people and has our best
interests at heart.

We do know who some of the shadow govt is. It's not Glenn Beck or Michelle Bachmann no matter how much you may dislike them.
The inner core of CFR and Skull and Bones is a big part of this. Antony Sutton has written extensively on the Skull and Bones secret society. The Club
of Rome is a big player in Agenda 21. Sorry if it's tough to accept.

The CFR's Study No. 7, published November 25, 1959, openly declared its true purpose: "...building a New International Order [which] must be
responsive to world aspirations for peace, [and] for social and economic change...an international order [code for world government]...including
states labeling themselves as 'Socialist.'" One could safely say that a nutshell descriptor of the CFR is "to bring about a New World Order
through the manipulation of U.S. foreign policy and relations and through international economic interdependence."

The CFR is a serpentine network of international revolutionaries and fascist ideologues whose goal is to end American sovereignty and bring about
a global, Marxist paradise. House, a socialist, wrote in his book, Philip Dru: Administrator, that he was working for "Socialism as dreamed of by
Karl Marx." He told of a "conspiracy" which would gain control of both political parties, and use them as instruments in the creation of a
socialist world government. (John McManus, The Insiders, pg. 7.)

Many of its own members admit the CFR goal is to subvert the democratic process. CFR member and Judge Advocate General of the US Navy Admiral
Chester Ward writes "The main purpose of the (CFR) is promoting the disarmament of US sovereignty and national dependence and submergence into and
all powerful, one world government.". This high ranking military officer went on to explain their procedures for influencing policy,

Since 9-11, he has steadfastly refused to discuss the evidence of government complicity and prior knowledge. Furthermore he claims that the
Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Bilderberg Committee, and Trilateral Commission are “nothing organizations.” When critiquing poverty, he never
mentions the Federal Reserve and their role in manipulating the cycle of debt.
Similarly, he claims the CIA was never a rogue organization and is an innocent scapegoat; that JFK was killed by the lone assassin Lee Harvey Oswald;
that the obvious vote fraud in 2004 did not occur; and that peak oil is real and good for humanity.

What he does advocate is population control, gun control, support for U.N.E.S.C.O., and the end of national sovereignty in favor of a one-world
government under the UN. In other words, the major goals of the New World Order.

Chomsky’s role in propaganda paradigm is much like that of Karl Marx: to present a false liberation ideology which actually supports the desired
solutions of the elite. Marx pointed out the inequalities and brutality of capitalism and then advocated a one world bank, army, and government with
the abolition of private property and religion; in other words, the major goals known of the New World Order.

The Club of Rome, a globalist front group created in 1968, immediately began calling for population reduction under the guise of environmentalism.
Other fronts like the World Wildlife Fund, managed by the aforementioned Prince Philip, vocally push for population control while seizing large swaths
of land for "Mother Earth." Other pet projects such as the Kyoto Protocol, which would give the UN total control of energy resources, have floundered.
Past WWF board members have included Bilderberg founder Prince Bernhard, Hollinger media gopher and Bilderberg member Conrad Black, Shell chairman
John Loudon, King Juan Carlos of Spain, Prince Henrik of Denmark, and accused drug dealer Henry Keswick.

Chomsky is one of the many re-direct agents who use the real environmental pollution problems to push for a fascist takeover by a world government.
Much like the ideas discussed in the Report From Iron Mountain, he uses the threat of global warming to justify totalitarian control:

You view it as all of our responsibility as human beings to stand up, even when someone is in power, especially when someone is in power, who you may
have voted for, or who you like, or who you think is the lesser of two evils. That’s when your principles are tested. You know, a society’s values
are not defined—our values are not defined by how we treat the rich and the powerful and the popular. It’s defined by how we treat the least of
our people, how we treat the poorest.

The discussion of human resposnibility reveals the bare truth to the individuals behaviours in civilised society. There is way too much violence in
this world and there doesnt have to be if people take more responsibility for thier own actions, and are vigilant in communicating as combined voice
their expectations to the people they are voting into office.

I am aware of the Bilderbergers, Skull & Bones, Club of Rome, CFR, TLC, Bohemian Grove, etc.!!
*facepalm*
Sheesh.
Please stop trying to 'educate' me with writings from obviously biased people. I keep bringing up Beck because I know you adore him and you once
admonished me to "read his book", which I refused to do. Alex Jones is another one who I tried to take seriously, but quickly by fact-checking and
looking at opposing views decided he was likewise not worth paying attention to.

You are following 'extremist' thinking and I am tired of you shoving them at me. I know how to research and investigate things, ThirdEye. I know
how to read something, then look at critiques of it, supporters of it, and follow off-shoots. I know how to use the internet, how to assess
information. I'm learning every day, and it's clear that my stance is fluid in how I assess what's out there.

None of us know 'the whole story', and while I understand this is a conspiracy-theory website, NOT EVERYTHING is a conspiracy. Yes, I do spend time
looking at the issues and reading both the 'conspiracy!' and 'no conspiracy' and I understand that the truth is somewhere in between.

Some people I have given a chance, and then dismissed. Others I have discovered, followed for a time, and come to respect if not 'trust'. Because
WE DON'T KNOW.

What you are awakening to is what Robert Welch of the JBS and Benjamin Friedman were warning us of in the 1960s.

TPTB are in control of every Gov't in the West. They control the media, the banking system, the education system, the universities, Hollywood, and
every major corporation.

They have had plans in place for centuries. They are smarter than us, and they want to be in control--while we wish to be left alone and to take care
of ourselves (except for those who wish to be taken care of). That, unfortunately, is a sure win for them nearly every time.

Welch argued 50 years ago that our only hope was the House of Representatives---electing enough good men to foil the plans as frequently as possible.

JFK and Reagan were both shot by "mad lone gunmen" and Welch's successor--Congressman Larry MacDonald was shot down on KAL 007 by "the Russians".
Easy to get rid of those who oppose them, and place the blame elsewhere.

I can not think of a way to effectively reassume control of our nation. Wish I could.

His research is impeccable. There are a full 80 pages of references/sources at the back of the book, making it much less likely it's a work of fiction
and/or just simply his opinion. Unlike someone like (cough) David Ike.. (cough)

the GOP has tried to demonize the ideas, because, well, that's what they do.

Statements like this are a signal to me that a person has bought into the common political propaganda to a significant extent, regardless of who they
are directed at. If someone made the same statement about democrats it would be the same red flag. There is no dirty tactic or immoral approach
imaginable that only one party is guilty of committing. The democrats demonize ideas as well, and implying that the demonization of ideas is limited
to one party is to ignore the same behavior on the other side.

Blind allegiance to party is why Bush was able to do his terrible things, and why Obama is able to do the same now. I have yet to see a sea of protest
signs that say "Obama lied, people died", but that phrase was ubiquitous during Bush's term.

I wish people would spend less time criticizing the opposing party and more time criticizing their own party. I identify more closely with republican
beliefs than democrats. I could complain all day about democrat policy and actions, but I would rather think critically about what the republicans are
doing wrong because they are supposed to be representing me if I voted for them.

Allegiance to a party should not be given unconditionally, nor should opposition. I tend to vote more for republicans but have voted for democrats as
well. I'm not loyal to republicans, nor am I opposed to democrats. They are both capable of producing good and bad. I hold the people who I voted for
to a much higher standard than the ones I voted against.

Excellent post.

Republican/Right Wing/Conservative = Freedom at the expense of Equality
Democrat/Left Wing/Liberal = Equality at the expense of Freedom.

Both freedom and equality are important and valuable concepts in a democracy, both are needed for a healthy social environment. All major political
debates from both sides originate from this primary driving idealogical difference in what is most important... BOTH are equally important, in
moderation.

They (TPTB) know this and that is why they use one philosphical approach to combat the other in a policy charade that can never end; once you (the
average citizen) marry your belief to one view over the other (decide you value freedom or equality to the point you would destroy the opposing
concept) you become a tool and cannot think objectively from a political perspective.

The whole thing is a charade now, both sides are right and both sides are wrong; by design. In order to enslave the average citizen to a system of
economic slavery unnoticed by the individual under the guise of democracy. A Domacracy where candidate A and candidate B are your choices, selected
by a commitee of a few for your voting convienance, where they spend 2 years arguing over whether freedom or equality is so important they should hurt
the opposing concept, when the truth is both are importand and needed in balance.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.